Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided PCI: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 24 Randomized Controlled Trials

Data Sources and Searches

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the United States National Institutes of Health registry of clinical trials, and relevant websites were searched for pertinent published or unpublished studies from inception to September 2023. The electronic search strategy was complemented by manual examination of references cited by included articles, recent reviews, editorials, and meta-analyses. No restrictions were imposed on study period or sample size, but only articles in English were considered. Keywords included ‘intravascular ultrasound, ‘optical coherence tomography’, ‘PCI’, ‘percutaneous coronary intervention’, ‘coronary stenting’, ‘stenting’, ‘stent’, ‘stent implantation’, ‘angiography’, ‘impact’, ‘outcome’, ‘randomized’, and ‘randomized clinical trial’ (Supplemental Table 1). The present study complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.³¹ The study protocol was prespecified and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023402677). Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Samsung Medical Center waived IRB approval process based on the study design, which is the study-level meta-analysis using published materials.

Study Selection

Studies were included if they met the following prespecified criteria: (1) RCTs comparing intravascular imaging-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI in patients with coronary artery disease; (2) clinical outcome assessment with follow-up duration of at least 1 month; and (3) clinical outcomes including all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), or stent thrombosis. Non-randomized studies, duplicated reports of previous RCTs, or post-hoc analysis including cost-effectiveness analysis of reported RCTs were not included (Supplemental Table 2). Two independent investigators (D.H. and W.K.) screened titles and abstracts, identified duplicates, performed full-article reviews, and determined inclusion. Two other investigators (S.H.L. and J.M.L.) supervised the search and adjudicated disagreements.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Summary data as reported in the published manuscripts were analyzed. A standardized form was used to extract study characteristics; trial design; number of trial population; median follow-up duration; type of intravascular imaging devices; demographics; clinical and angiographic eligibility criteria, including clinical diagnosis and angiographic lesion characteristics; proportion of cardiovascular risk factors; and used stent types. The rates of all-cause mortality, MI, TVR, stent thrombosis, and MACE were collected, along with the definition of clinical events, as reported on an intention-to-treat basis. For trials which used both IVUS and OCT, group size and number of events were separately extracted, according to the type of intravascular imaging devices. In trials with available reports for both short- and long-term clinical outcomes, those with the longest follow-up duration were used in the current meta-analysis. In addition, unadjusted results of clinical events were used in the current meta-analysis.

The quality of eligible trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool Version 2 for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs regarding random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessment, incomplete outcome assessment, or selective reporting. We did not exclude individual studies from the analysis based on the risk of bias in RCTs.

Outcomes and Definitions

The primary outcome was MACE at the longest available follow-up. Since the definition of MACE or composite outcomes varied across the trials, we used representative composite outcome reported under intention-to-treat principle in the included trials. The definition of MACE used in the included trials are presented in Supplemental Table 3. In most trials, MACE was a composite of all-cause death, MI, and TVR. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, MI, TVR, and stent thrombosis.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed using random-effects models. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented as summary statistics. Because all included studies showed heterogeneity regarding study protocol and populations, fixed-effects models were only used for sensitivity analyses to check whether these models yielded similar results. The pooled RRs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method for random effects, as well as the Mantel–Haenszel method for fixed effects. Because of progressive changes in primary study designs and clinical practice patterns, especially type of used stents (bare metal stent, 1^st or 2^nd generation DES), we evaluated the impact of publication date on the overall effect of pooled RRs for the risk of MACE by a cumulative meta-analysis. Since all of the included trials in the cumulative meta-analysis had the same comparison groups, cumulative pooled effect estimates up to time point of last study inclusion could reflect temporal trends in effect size (RR). Statistical heterogeneity was quantified with the I² statistics. I² values <25%, 25% to 50%, and >50% indicate low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively. Small study bias (publication bias) was assessed by funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s and Begg’s tests; when visual asymmetry of funnel plot was suspected, the trim- and-fill method was used to estimate the number of missing studies and to calculate a corrected RR, as if these studies were present. The influence of an individual study was explored by estimating pooled RRs, with stepwise exclusion of one study.

Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether effects differed across subgroups. These subgroups analyses were analyzed: (1) type of intravascular imaging devices (IVUS or OCT); (2) angiographic characteristics (all-comers population or patients with complex coronary artery disease); (3) type of complex coronary artery lesions (chronic total occlusion, left main disease, or diffuse long lesion); (4) type of used stents (bare metal stent, 1^st or 2^nd generation DES); (5) clinical presentation (stable ischemic heart disease or acute coronary syndrome); and (6) presence of cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease). Random-effects meta regression analysis was performed to evaluate differential effect size of intravascular imaging-guided PCI for MACE according to each subgroup. Two-sided P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA/SE 12.0 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, Texas, USA) and R programming language, version 4.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Included Trials and Patient Characteristics

Of a total of 809 searched articles, 38 were retrieved for full article review and 24 met prespecified inclusion criteria and were finally included (Figure 1). A total of 14,037 patients from 24 RCTs were included in the current meta-analysis. Among the total patients, 7,383 (52.6%) patients were treated with intravascular imaging-guided PCI and the remaining 6,654 (47.4%) patients were with angiography-guided PCI. The characteristics of the included trials are summarized in Table 1. The study population of 11 trials were all-comers without restriction by angiographic lesion characteristics and the remaining 13 trials exclusively enrolled patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Fifteen trials exclusively used IVUS, 6 trials exclusively used OCT, and the other 3 trials used both IVUS and OCT. 17 trials used 2^nd generation DES and the other 7 trials used bare metal stent or 1^st generation DES. The follow-up duration of each trial ranged from 6 months to 5 years and weighted median follow-up duration in the current meta-analysis was 2.0 years.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Study Selection

The study flow diagram was depicted following the guideline of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Regarding the quality of included trials, most trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias, although some criteria were unclearly described in few trials (Supplemental Figure 1 and Supplemental Table 4). The characteristics of patients in the included trials are presented in Supplemental Table 5. Briefly, weighted mean age of the study population was 64.3 years and 75.6% were male. 64.8%, 30.5%, and 60.4% of the study population had hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, respectively. 55.7% of the study population presented with acute coronary syndrome. As only RCTs were included in the current study, baseline characteristics were balanced between intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI groups.

Clinical Outcomes

Among 14,037 patients from 24 RCTs, observed rates of MACE in pooled analysis were 9.1% and 12.4% at a weighted median follow-up of 2.0 years for intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI groups, respectively. In random-effects model, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE than angiography-guided PCI (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.84; P<0.001; heterogeneity I², 18.9%) (Figure 2). Number needed to treat to prevent one MACE was 33 (95% CI, 25 to 50). A fixed-effects model yielded similar results (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83; P<0.001; heterogeneity I², 18.9%). The lower risk of MACE in intravascular imaging-guided PCI was driven by significantly lower risks of MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.97; P=0.019; heterogeneity I², 0.0%) and TVR (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.79; P<0.001; heterogeneity I², 0.0%). Regarding stent thrombosis, observed rates were 0.5% and 1.2% at a weighted median follow-up of 2.0 years for intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI groups, respectively (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.78; P=0.002; heterogeneity I², 0.0%). However, there was no difference in the risk of all-cause death between the 2 groups (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P=0.068; heterogeneity I², 0.0%) (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Meta-Analysis Comparing Major Adverse Cardiac Event Between Intravascular Imaging vs. Angiography-Guided PCI

Forest plots comparing major adverse cardiac event, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization between intravascular imaging-guided and angiography-guided PCI. RRs with 95% CIs are displayed for individual studies and the pooled overall effect.

Abbreviations: AIR-CTO, Angiographic and clinical comparisons of intravascular ultrasound-versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with chronic total occlusion lesions; AVID, Angiography Versus Intravascular ultrasound-Directed stent placement; AVIO, Angiography Vs. IVUS Optimization; CRUISE, Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion; CI, indicates confidence interval; CTO-IVUS, Chronic Total Occlusion InterVention with drUg-eluting Stents guided by IVUS; DOCTORS, Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting; FFR-REACT, Fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary intervention optimization directed by high-definition intravascular ultrasound versus standard of care; HOME DES IVUS, Long-Term Health Outcome and Mortality Evaluation After Invasive Coronary Treatment Using Drug Eluting Stents with or without the IVUS Guidance; iSIGHT, Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiography to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Interventions; IVUS-XPL, Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions; OCTACS, Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Nobori Stent Implantation in Patients With Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; OCTOBER, European Trial on Optical Coherence Tomography Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction; OPTICUS, OPTimization with ICUS to reduce stent restenosis; RENOVATE COMPLEX-PCI, Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; RESET, Real Safety and Efficacy of a 3-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Implantation; ROBUST, Comparison of Biolimus A9 and Everolimus Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; RR, relative risk; SIPS, Strategy for Intracoronary Ultrasound-Guided PTCA and Stenting; TULIP, Thrombocyte activity evaluation and effects of Ultrasound guidance in Long Intracoronary stent Placement; and ULTIMATE, Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in “All-Comers” Coronary Lesions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Meta-Analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes Between Intravascular Imaging vs. Angiography-Guided PCI

Forest plots comparing individual clinical outcomes between intravascular imaging-guided and angiography-guided PCI. RRs with 95% CIs are displayed for individual studies and the pooled overall effect. (A) all-cause death, (B) myocardial infarction, (C) target vessel revascularization, and (D) stent thrombosis.

Abbreviations are as in Figure 2.

To assess the robustness and bias of the main results, additional analyses were performed. Fixed-effects models yielded consistent results with those from the random-effects models for MI, TVR, and stent thrombosis. In the cumulative meta-analysis to evaluate the temporal trend, intravascular imaging-guided PCI consistently showed a lower risk of MACE than angiography-guided PCI over time from 2000 to 2023 (Supplemental Figure 2). No individual study substantially influenced the pooled effect estimate for MACE (Supplemental Figure 3). Funnel plots, supported by Egger’s and Begg’s tests, indicated no small study bias for MACE. The adjusted RRs for MACE by trim- and-fill method showed consistent results (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.84; P<0.001) (Supplemental Figure 4).

Subgroup Analysis

In subgroup analysis according to the all-comers population or patients with complex coronary artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI consistently showed a lower risk of MACE than angiography-guided PCI. However, the prognostic benefit of the intravascular imaging-guided PCI was relatively higher in patients treated by 2^nd generation DES than previous types of stents (Interaction P value=0.014) (Figure 4). The prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI over angiography-guided PCI was consistently observed in both stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome (Supplemental Figure 5). Other subgroup analyses also showed similar results (Figure 4). Although intravascular imaging-guided PCI marginally reduced the risk of all-cause death in overall meta-analysis, subgroup of the trials with 2^nd generation DES showed significant reduction of all-cause death in intravascular imaging-guided PCI group than angiography-guided PCI group (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.95; P=0.018; heterogeneity I², 0.0%), which was not seen in the trials with bare metal stent or 1^st generation DES (Figure 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Subgroup Analysis

Forest plots of subgroup analysis comparing major adverse cardiac event, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization between intravascular imaging-guided and angiography-guided PCI. RRs with 95% CIs are displayed for individual studies and the pooled overall effect.

Abbreviations are as in Figure 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Meta-Analysis Comparing Death Between Intravascular Imaging vs. Angio-Guided Optimization Stratified by Stent Type

Forest plots comparing all-cause death between intravascular imaging-guided and angiography-guided PCI according to type of used stents. RRs with 95% CIs are displayed for individual studies and the pooled overall effect.

Abbreviations are as in Figure 2.

Patient and Public Involvement

No patient was involved in conceiving the research question, designing of the study, or interpretating the results.

Current Status of Intravascular Imaging-Guided PCI

Previous RCTs have reported that intravascular imaging-guided PCI reduced the risk of MACE compared with angiography-guided PCI, largely by lowering the risk of repeat revascularization.^{12–14 32} However, those RCTs have not been considered to be definitive due to limited sample size or inclusion of highly selected coronary lesion subsets. In this regard, current practice guidelines recommend the use of intravascular imaging-guided PCI as Class IIa.^{1 2} Furthermore, penetration rate of intravascular imaging in daily practice has been low, although it varies across different healthcare systems or clinical indications of PCI. For example, it was approximately 7.0-9.3% in the United States^{33 34} and 27.5-28.6% in South Korea.³⁵

Prognostic Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided PCI

Since most RCTs had only modest sample sizes to establish clinical benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in terms of hard clinical events such as death, MI, or stent thrombosis, a few observational studies assessed a larger number of patients and showed that intravascular imaging-guided PCI resulted in a lower risk of death or MI than angiography-guided PCI.^{33 36–38} Although previous meta-analyses presented similar results,^{39 40} inclusion of both observational studies and RCTs would have caused heterogeneity and lowered the evidence level of the results. Recently, 3 large scaled RCTs have been published and showed conflicting results regarding the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI.^{29 30 41} The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial evaluated 1,639 patients with complex coronary artery lesions and firstly showed a superiority of imaging-guided PCI using IVUS or OCT over angiography-guided PCI in reducing the hard clinical end point including cardiac death and MI at a median follow-up of 2.1 years (7.7% vs. 12.3%, respectively; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89; P=0.008).⁴¹ Subsequent OCTOBER trial showed that OCT-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of target vessel failure at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex bifurcation lesions (10.1% vs. 14.1%, respectively; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P=0.035).²⁹ Conversely, ILUMIEN IV trial failed to show significant prognostic benefit of OCT-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus or complex coronary artery lesions at 2 years (7.4% vs. 8.2%, respectively; HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P=0.45).³⁰

The current meta-analysis was performed to clarify whether intravascular imaging-guided PCI would have prognostic benefit over angiography-guided PCI, especially for hard clinical events such as all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis. Compared with previous meta-analyses,^{39 40} the current study included only RCTs and evaluated the largest number of randomized patients. Similar to the prior results, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE compared with angiography-guided PCI among all-comers and patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The results suggested that intravascular imaging-guided PCI would prevent 1 MACE event in every 33 patients undergoing PCI. Importantly, it should be noted that intravascular imaging-guided PCI reduced not only the risk of TVR but also the risks of hard clinical events such as MI and stent thrombosis. The I² values for all clinical outcomes evaluated in the current study were less than 25%, indicating low heterogeneity among the included trials. Conversely, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between the 2 groups in meta-analysis of overall trials. However, it should be noted that pooled analysis of the trials with 2^nd generation DES showed significantly reduced risk of all-cause death following intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI. Considering that bare metal stent or 1^st generation DES are no longer used in contemporary PCI and that the risks of MI and stent thrombosis significantly reduced following intravascular imaging-guided PCI, it would be reasonable to accept survival benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in contemporary practice. Currently ongoing trials will evaluate IVUS-guided PCI in all-comers with complex coronary artery lesions (IMPROVE [NCT04221815] and IVUS-CHIP [NCT04854070]) or unprotected left main disease (OPTIMAL [NCT04111770] and DKCRUSH-VIII [NCT03770650]), or OCT-guided PCI (OCCUPI [NCT03625908]), and these trials will provide additional information on the benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI, especially regarding the risk of death after PCI.

Future Perspectives of Intravascular Imaging-Guided PCI

In the current study, the treatment effect of intravascular imaging-guided PCI was consistent regardless of clinical presentation, cardiovascular comorbidities, type of used stents, and presence of complex coronary lesions. However, it should be noted that the effect size of the intravascular imaging-guided PCI for the risk of MACE was relatively higher in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. These results were in line with the current guidelines which recommend the use of intravascular imaging-guided PCI mainly for complex coronary artery lesions.^{1 2} With emerging evidences, further discussion is needed in interventional societies and guidelines committees as to whether intravascular imaging-guided PCI should be upgraded to Class I recommendation for complex coronary artery lesions. As shown in the subgroup analysis, among complex coronary artery lesions, more evidence from RCTs has been accumulated in chronic total occlusion, left main disease, and diffuse long lesion than other complex coronary artery lesions. Integration of ongoing trials and in-depth discussion are also needed to adequately define the complex coronary artery lesion that may benefit the most from intravascular imaging-guided PCI. In addition, it should not be underestimated that intravascular imaging-guided PCI also reduced the risk of MACE in all-comers. Concurrently, efforts should be made to standardize intravascular imaging optimization criteria that are practical, feasible, and prognostically well-validated. Considering low penetration rates of intravascular imaging in daily practice, more efforts need to be made to increase awareness and educate and support practicing interventional cardiologists.⁴² Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI should be clarified to help increase its penetration rate in daily practice.

In the current meta-analysis, intravascular imaging-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of MACE in both stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome patients. However, there has been limited evidence from RCT regarding the role of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in acute coronary syndrome. Similarly, there have only been a few RCTs comparing the clinical benefit of OCT-guided PCI over angiography-guided PCI and recent two large scaled trials (ILUMIEN IV and OCTOBER) showed conflicting results.^{29 30} To date, supporting evidence for OCT-guided PCI was mostly derived from RCTs which showed comparable clinical outcomes between IVUS- and OCT-guided PCI.^{20 21 43 44} Similarly, subgroup analysis of the current study demonstrated no significant interaction according to the type of intravascular imaging devices, suggesting similar treatment effect between IVUS- and OCT-guided PCI. These results are in line with the recently published OCTIVUS trial which showed comparable clinical outcomes between IVUS- and OCT-guided PCI.⁴⁴ Currently ongoing OCCUPI (NCT03625908) trial will test the potential superiority of OCT-guided PCI over angiography-guided PCI. Furthermore, since those trials are enrolling both stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome patients, their results will further enrich the evidence supporting the value of intravascular imaging-guided PCI.